Pacifism
Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace (pacificism); to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others. Pacifism may be based on moral principles (a deontological view) or pragmatism (a consequentialist view). Principled pacifism holds that at some point along the spectrum from war to interpersonal physical violence, such violence becomes morally wrong. Pragmatic pacifism holds that the costs of war and inter-personal violence are so substantial that better ways of resolving disputes must be found. Pacifists in general reject theories of Just War. Pacifists follow principles of nonviolence, believing that non-violent action is morally superior and/or pragmatically most effective. Some pacifists, however, support physical violence for emergency defense of self or others. Others support destruction of property in such emergencies or for conducting symbolic acts of resistance like pouring red paint to represent blood on the outside of military recruiting offices or entering air force bases and hammering on military aircraft. However, part of the pacifist belief system is taking responsibility for one's actions by submitting to arrest and using a trial to publicize opposition to war and other forms of violence. Dove or dovish are informal terms used, especially in politics, for people who prefer to avoid war or prefer war as a last resort. The terms refer to the story of Noah's Ark in which the dove came to symbolize the hope of salvation and peace. Similarly, in common parlance, the opposite of a dove is a hawk or war hawk. Early history 's painting Apotheosis of War (1871) came to be admired as one of the earliest artistic expressions of pacifism.]] Advocacy of pacifism can be found far back in history and literature. Compassion for all life, human and nonhuman, is central to Jainism, founded by Mahavira 599–527 BCE. This doctrine values human life as a unique opportunity to reach enlightenment and regards the killing of any person, no matter what crime he may have committed, as unimaginably abhorrent. In Ancient Greece, however, pacifism seems not to have existed except as a broad moral guideline against violence between individuals. No philosophical program of rejecting violence between states, or rejecting all forms of violence, seems to have existed. Aristophanes, in his play Lysistrata, does create the scenario of an Athenian women's anti-war sex strike during the Peloponnesian War of 431–404 BCE, and the play has gained an international reputation for its anti-war message. Nevertheless, it is both fictional and comical, and though it offers a pragmatic opposition to the destructiveness of war, its message seems to stem from frustration with the existing conflict (then in its twentieth year) rather than from a philosophical position against violence or war. Equally fictional is the nonviolent protest of Hegetorides of Thasos. The Moriori, of the Chatham Islands, practiced pacifism by order of their ancestor Nunuku-whenua. This enabled the Moriori to preserve what limited resources they had in their harsh climate, avoiding waste through warfare. In turn, this almost led to their complete annihilation in 1835 by invading Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama Māori from the Taranaki region of the North Island of New Zealand. The invading Māori killed, enslaved and cannibalised the Moriori. Throughout history, many have understood Jesus of Nazareth to have been a pacifist, drawing on his Sermon on the Mount (see Christian pacifism). In the sermon Jesus stated that one should "not resist an evildoer" and promoted his turn the other cheek philosophy. "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well... Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."oremus Bible Browser : Matthew 5oremus Bible Browser : Luke 6 The New Testament story is of Jesus, besides preaching these words, surrendering himself freely to an enemy intent on having him killed and proscribing his followers from defending him. There are those, however, who deny that Jesus was a pacifist and state that Jesus never said that you should not fight, citing examples from the New Testament. One such instance portrays an angry Jesus driving dishonest market traders from the temple using a whip, despite the absence of scriptural evidence that indicates Jesus used the whip on people. A frequently quoted passage is Luke 22:36: “He said to them, ‘But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.’” Others have interpreted the non-pacifist statements in the New Testament to be metaphorical and state that on no occasion does Jesus shed blood or urge others to shed blood. The early Christian church practiced Jesus' pacifist teachings quite literally.Just War Theology However, beginning with the Roman emperor Constantine I in the 4th century A.D., the church not only began to be integrated into the rest of society, but to assume positions of power and authority. The strict practice of pacifism began to be viewed as impractical and even irresponsible when Christians could use such power to confront evil and injustice. Early church leaders such as Augustine and later Thomas Aquinas justified the use of arms as a last resort in the protection of innocent life from attack and injustice, what now often is called Just War Theory. Modern history Beginning in the 16th century, the Protestant Reformation gave rise to a variety of new Christian sects, including the historic peace churches. Foremost among them were the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Amish, Mennonites and Church of the Brethren. After its founding by Quaker pacifist William Penn, Quaker-controlled colonial Pennsylvania employed an anti-militarist public policy. Unlike residents of many of the colonies, Quakers chose to trade peacefully with the Indians, including for land. The colonial province was, for the 75 years from 1681 to 1756, essentially unarmed and experienced little or no warfare in that period. Bohemian Bernard Bolzano (1781–1848) taught about the social waste of militarism and the needlessness of war. He urged a total reform of the educational, social, and economic systems that would direct the nation's interests toward peace rather than toward armed conflict between nations. Leo Tolstoy was another fervent advocate of pacifism. In one of his latter works The Kingdom of God is Within You, Tolstoy provides a detailed history, account and defense of pacifism. The book was a major early influence on Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869–1948) and the two engaged in regular correspondence while Gandhi was active in South Africa. In Aotearoa aka New Zealand during the latter half of the 19th century British colonists used many tactics to confiscate land from the indigenous Ma-ori, including warfare. One Ma-ori leader, Te Whiti-o-Rongomai, inspired warriors to stand up for their rights without using weapons, which had led to defeat in the past. He convinced 2000 Ma-oris to welcome battle-hardened British soldiers into their village and even offered food and drink. He allowed himself and his people to be arrested without resistance for opposing land confiscation. He is remembered as a great leader because the “passive resistance” he practiced prevented British massacres and even protected, thereby protecting far more land than violent resistance. Winder, Virginia, “Conflict and Protest - Pacifist of Parihaka - Te Whiti o Rongomai” Mohandas K. Gandhi was a major political and spiritual leader of India, and of the Indian independence movement. Grateful Indians christened him with the title “Mahatma” or “Great Soul.” He was the pioneer of a brand of nonviolence (or ahimsa) which he called satyagraha -- translated literally as "truth force". This was the resistance of tyranny through civil disobedience that was not only nonviolent, but sought to change the heart of the opponent. He contrasted this with duragraha - “resistant force” - which merely sought to change behavior with stubborn protest. During his thirty year leadership of the Indian Independence Movement from 1917 to 1947 Gandhi led dozens of nonviolent campaigns, spent over seven years in British prisons, and fasted nearly to the death on several occasions to obtain British compliance with a demand or to stop inter-communal violence. His efforts helped lead India to independence in 1947, and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom worldwide. There was strong anti-war sentiment in Western Europe during the 19th century. Many socialist groups and movements were antimilitarist, arguing that war by its nature was a type of governmental coercion of the working class for the benefit of capitalist elites. French socialist pacifist leader Jean Jaurès's assassination on July 31, 1914 was followed by the socialist Second International's dissolution into chauvinism and militarism as international socialist groups supported their respective nations in war. Nevertheless many groups protested that war, including the traditional peace churches, the Woman's Peace Party which was organized in 1915 and led by noted reformer Jane Addams and the International Committee of Women for Permanent Peace (ICWPP), also organized in 1915. Pacifism vs. Patriotism in Women's Organizations in the 1920s. Other groups included the American Union Against Militarism, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and the American Friends Service Committee. Chatfield, Charles, “Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy” 2002. In the aftermath of World War I there was a great revulsion against war, leading to the formation of more peace groups like War Resisters' International and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. The Spanish Civil War proved a major test for international pacifism, and the heroic work of pacifist organisations and individuals in that arena has been largely ignored or forgotten by historians, overshadowed by the memory of the International Brigades and other militaristic interventions. With the start of World War II, pacifist and anti-war sentiment declined in nations affected by war. Even the communist-controlled American Peace Mobilization reversed its anti-war activism once Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, mainstream isolationist groups like the America First Committee, declined, though many smaller religious and socialist groups continued their opposition to war. Bertrand Russell argued that the necessity of defeating Adolf Hitler and the Nazis was a unique circumstance where war was not the worst of the possible evils; he called his position relative pacifism. H. G. Wells, who had claimed after the armistice ending World War I that the British had suffered more from the war than they would have from submission to Germany, urged in 1941 a large-scale British offensive on the continent of Europe to combat Hitler and Nazism. Similarly Albert Einstein wrote: "'I loathe all armies and any kind of violence; yet I'm firmly convinced that at present these hateful weapons offer the only effective protection."Quoted on Albert Einstein at Peace Pledge Union, and but also discussed in detail in articles in Einstein, Albert (1954), Ideas and Opinions, New York: Random House, ISBN 0-517-00393-7 Conscientious objectors and war tax resisters were active in both World War I and World War II. The United States government did allow sincere objectors to serve in noncombatant military roles. However, those draft resisters who refused any cooperation with the war effort often spent much of each war in federal prisons. During World War II pacifist leaders like Dorothy Day and Ammon Hennacy of the Catholic Worker Movement urged young Americans not to enlist in military service. Martin Luther King, Jr (1929 - 1968), a Baptist minister, lead the American civil rights movement which successfully used Gandhian nonviolent resistance to repeal laws enforcing racial segregation and work for integration of schools, businesses and government. In 1957 his wife Coretta Scott King, Albert Schweitzer, Dr. Benjamin Spock and others formed the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (now Peace Action) to resist the nuclear arms race. In 1958 British activists formed the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament with Bertrand Russell as its president. In 1960, Thich Nhat Hanh came to the U.S. to study comparative religion at Princeton University, and subsequently was appointed lecturer in Buddhism at Columbia University. Thich Nhat Hanh had written a letter to Martin Luther King in 1965 entitled: “Searching for the Enemy of Man” and during his 1966 stay in the U.S. met with King and urged him to publicly denounce the Vietnam War."Searching for the Enemy of Man", in Nhat Nanh, Ho Huu Tuong, Tam Ich, Bui Giang, Pham Cong Thien. Dialogue. Saigon: La Boi, 1965. P. 11-20., archived on the African-American Involvement in the Vietnam War website, King's Journey: 1964 - April 4, 1967 King gave his famous speech at the Riverside Church in New York City in 1967,"Beyond Vietnam", April 4, 1967, speech made by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Riverside Church, NYC, archived on the African-American Involvement in the Vietnam War website his first to publicly question the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Pacifism and religion Pacifist social movements in Buddhism Buddhist Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is a nonviolent pro-democracy activist and leader of the National League for Democracy in Myanmar (Burma). A devout Buddhist, Suu Kyi won the Rafto Prize and the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 1990 and in 1991 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her peaceful and non-violent struggle under a repressive military dictatorship. One of her best known speeches is the "Freedom From Fear" speech, which begins "It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it." Stencil]] Especially famous for leading a pacifist movement, Tenzin Gyatso is the fourteenth and current Dalai Lama, and as such, is often referred to in Western media as simply the Dalai Lama. On November 17 1950, at the age of fifteen, he was enthroned as Tibet's Head of State and most important political ruler, while Tibet faced occupation by the forces of the People's Republic of China. After the collapse of the Tibetan resistance movement in 1959, Tenzin Gyatso fled to India, where he was active in establishing the Central Tibetan Administration (the Tibetan government in exile) and preserving Tibetan culture and education among the thousands of refugees who accompanied him. A charismatic figure and noted public speaker, Tenzin Gyatso is the first Dalai Lama to travel to the West, where he has helped to spread Buddhism and to publicise the cause of Free Tibet. In 1989, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Christian peace churches Peace churches are Christian denominations explicitly advocating pacifism. The term historic peace churches refers specifically to certain Anabaptist traditions: the Brethren, Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites, and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). The historic peace churches have, from their origins as far back as the 16th century, always taken the position that Jesus was himself a pacifist who explicitly taught and practiced pacifism, and that his followers must do likewise. Pacifist churches vary on whether physical force can ever be justified in self-defense or protecting others, as many adhere strictly to nonresistance when confronted by violence. But all agree that violence on behalf of a country or a government is prohibited for Christians. Pacifism in Pentecostal churches Jay Beaman's thesisBeaman, J: Pentecostal Pacifism: The Origin, Development, and Rejection of Pacfic Belief among the Pentecostals, Center for Mennonite Brethren Studies, Hillsboro, KA, 1989 states that 13 of 21, or 62% of American Pentecostal groups formed by 1917 show evidence of being pacifist sometime in their history.Furthermore Jay Beaman has shown in his thesis that there has been a shift away from pacifism in the American Pentecostal churches to more a style of military chaplaincy and support of war. The major organisation for Pentecostal Christians who believe in pacifism is the PCPF, the Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship. Pacifism in mainstream Christian denominations The Peace Pledge Union was a pacifist organisation from which the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship (APF) later emerged within the Anglican Church. The APF succeeded in gaining ratification of the pacifist position at two successive Lambeth Conferences, though many Anglicans would not regard themselves as pacifists. South African Bishop Desmond Tutu is the most prominent Anglican pacifist. Rowan Williams led an almost united Anglican Church in Britain in opposition to the 2003 Iraq War. In Australia Peter Carnley similarly led a front of bishops opposed to the Australian Government's involvement in the invasion of Iraq. The Catholic Worker Movement is concerned with both social justice and pacifist issues, and voiced consistent opposition to the Spanish Civil War and World War II. Many of its early members were imprisoned for their opposition to conscription.Catholic Worker Movement http://www.catholicworker.org Within the Roman Catholic Church, the Pax Christi organisation is the premiere pacifist lobby group. It holds positions similar to APF and the two organisations are known to work together on ecumenical projects. Within Roman Catholicism there has been a discernible move towards a more pacifist position through the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Popes Benedict XV, John XXIII and John Paul II were all vocal in their opposition to specific wars. By taking the name Benedict XVI, some suspect that Joseph Ratzinger will continue the strong emphasis upon non-violent conflict resolution of his predecessor. However, the Roman Catholic Church officially maintains the legitimacy of Just War, which is rejected by pacifists. In the twentieth century there was a notable trend among prominent Roman Catholics towards pacifism. Individuals such as Dorothy Day and Henri Nouwen stand out among them. The monk and mystic Thomas Merton was noted for his commitment to social justice and pacifism during the Vietnam War era. Martyred El Salvadorian Bishop Oscar Romero was notable for using non-violent resistance tactics and wrote meditative sermons focusing on the power of prayer and peace. School of the Americas Watch was founded by Maryknoll Fr. Roy Bourgeois in 1990 and uses strictly pacifist principles to protest the training of Latin American military officers by United States Army officers at the School of the Americas in the state of Georgia. The Greek Orthodox Church also tends towards pacifism, though it has accepted defensive warfare through most of its history. However, more recently it took a strong stance towards the war in Lebanon and its large community there refused to take up arms during its civil wars. It also supports dialogue with Islam. In 1998 the Third Pre-conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference drew up a text on ‘the contribution of the Orthodox Church to the achievement of peace’ emphasizing respect for the human person and the inseparability of peace from justice. The text states in part: “Orthodoxy condemns war in general, for she regards it as a consequence of the evil and sin in the world.” Clément, Olivier, “ The Orthodox Church and Peace Some Reflections” on the Orthodox Peace Fellowship website. The Southern Baptist Convention has stated in the Baptist Faith and Message that: "It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war."SBC, “ Baptist Faith and Message 2000” Pacifism in the Bahá'í Faith Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith abolished holy war, and noted it as a central teaching of his faith. However, the Bahá'í Faith does not have an absolute pacifistic position. For example Bahá'ís are advised to do social service instead of active army service, but when this is not possible due to obligations in certain countries, the Bahá'í law of loyalty to one's government is preferred and the individual should perform the army service. Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, noted that in the Bahá'í view, absolute pacifists are anti-social and exalt the individual over society which could lead to anarchy; instead he noted that the Bahá'í conception of social life follows a moderate view where the individual is not suppressed or exalted. On the level of society, Bahá'u'lláh promotes the principle of collective security, which does not abolish the use of force, but prescribes "a system in which Force is made the servant of Justice." The idea of collective security from the Bahá'í teachings states that if a government violates a fundamental norm of international law or provision of a future world constitution which Bahá'ís believe will be established by all nations, then the other governments should step in. Pacifism in Jainism Compassion for all life, human and non-human, is central to Jainism. Human life is valued as a unique, rare opportunity to reach enlightenment; to kill any person, no matter what crime he may have committed, is considered unimaginably abhorrent. It is a religion that requires monks and laity, from all its sects and traditions, to be vegetarian. Some Indian regions, such as Gujarat, have been strongly influenced by Jains and often the majority of the local non-Jain population has also become vegetarian.Titze, Kurt, Jainism: A Pictorial Guide to the Religion of Non-Violence, Mohtilal Banarsidass, 1998 Pacifism and government While many governments have tolerated pacifist views and even accommodated pacifists' refusal to fight in wars, others at times have outlawed pacifist and anti-war activity. During the periods between World Wars I and II, Pacifist literature or public advocacy was banned in nations such as Italy under Mussolini, and Germany after the rise of Hitler. In these nations, pacifism was denounced as cowardice. The United States Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1918 because President Woodrow Wilson opposed dissent in time of war. Today the United States requires that all young men register for selective service, but does not allow them to be classified as conscientious objectors unless they are drafted in some future reinstatement of the draft. It does permit enlisted personnel to become conscientious objectors, allowing them to be discharged or transferred to noncombatant status.“Conscientious Objection Today, Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors” Some European governments like Switzerland, Greece, Norway and Germany offer civilian service. However, even during periods of peace, many pacifists still refuse to register for or report for military duty, risking criminal charges. Anti-war and “pacifist” political parties seeking to win elections may moderate their demands, calling for de-escalation or major arms reduction rather than the outright disarmament which is advocated by many pacifists. Once in power, parties have been known to drop their anti-war leanings. Green parties list "non-violence" and "decentralization" towards anarchist co-operatives or minimalist village government as two of their ten key values. However, in power, Greens like all politicians often compromise. The German Greens in the cabinet of Social Democrat Gerhard Schröder supported an intervention by German troops in Afghanistan in 2001, but on condition that they host the peace conference in Berlin. However, during the 2002 election Greens did force Schröder to swear that no German troops would invade Iraq. The controversial democratic peace theory holds that liberal democracies have never (or rarely) made war on one another and that lesser conflicts and internal violence are rare between and within democracies. It also argues that the growth in the number of democratic states will, in the not so distant future, end warfare. Some pacifists and multilateralists are in favor of the establishment of a world government as a means to prevent and control international aggression. Such a government would not have to worry about the UN veto being used by one of its members when it or one of its allies decides to agress on another nation, as currently is the case. While some unions, like the European Union, have been brought together peacefully, most large nation states have been united through war and held together by military action against secessionists. So it is questionable whether a world government devoted to peace could be formed without years of warfare. Some pacifists, such as the Christian anarchist Leo Tolstoy, consider the state a form of warfare. Criticisms of pacifism One common argument against pacifism is the possibility of using violence to prevent further acts of violence (and reduce the "net-sum" of violence). This argument hinges on the idea that the ends justify the means—i.e., that an otherwise morally objectionable action can be justified if it results in a positive outcome. For example, either violent rebellion - or another state sending in its military - to end a dictator's violent oppression may save millions of lives, even if many thousands died in the war. Most pacifists would oppose such violent action, arguing that nonviolent resistance should be just as effective and with a much lesser loss of life. Others would oppose organized military responses but support individual and small group self-defense against specific attacks if initiated by the dictator’s forces. Pacificists may argue that military action could be justified should it subsequently advance the general cause of peace. Still more pacifists would argue that a non-violent reaction may not save lives immediately but would in the long run. The acceptance of violence for any reason makes it easier to use in other situations. Learning and committing to pacifism helps to send a message that violence is, in fact, not the most effective way. It can also help people to think more creatively and find more effective ways to stop violence without more violence. Japanese, Italian and Nazi aggression that precipitated World War II often is cited as an argument against pacifism. If these forces had not been challenged and defeated militarily, the argument goes, many more people would have died under their oppressive rule. A frequently used quote is from Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Pacifists can claim that the United State's entry into World War I broke the multi-year stalemate between Germany and the allies, ensuring an overwhelming victory rather than a negotiated settlement. This permitted the victors to bankrupt Germany with war reparations, leading to economic unrest that hastened the rise of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. Pacifists also might note that Japanese imperialism against China only mirrored the centuries of European imperialism in the Asia and that United States economic and military actions towards Japan provoked it to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941."Principal Causes of the Second World War". BBC.CO.UK. Also pacifists would point out that the "something" good men must do is not necessarily violent. Some commentators on the most nonviolent forms of pacifism, including Jan Narveson, argue that such pacifism is a self-contradictory doctrine. Narveson claims that everyone has rights and corresponding responsibilities not to violate others' rights. Since pacifists give up their ability to protect themselves from violation of their right not to be harmed, then other people thus have no corresponding responsibility, thus creating a paradox of rights. As Narveson puts it, “the prevention of infractions of that right is precisely what one has a right to when one has a right at all." Narveson then discusses how rational persuasion is a good but often inadequate method of discouraging an aggressor. He considers that everyone has the right to use any means necessary to prevent deprivation of their civil liberties and force could be necessary.Narveson, January 1965. “Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis.” Ethics, LXXV: 4, pp 259-271. Narveson's arguments, however, assume that violence is the only method by which one can protect his rights and self. Many pacifists would argue that not only are there other ways to protect oneself, but that some of those ways are far more effective than violence. It also assumes that harm can only be done physically. Often pacifists would much rather take the physical harm inflicted by another rather than cause themselves emotional or psychological harm, not to mention harming the other. The ideology and political practice of pacifism also have been criticized by the radical American activist Ward Churchill, in his essay, Pacifism as Pathology. Churchill argues that the social and political advancements pacifists claim resulted from non-violent action always have been made possible by concurrent violent struggles. In the late 1990s Churchill's work convinced many anarchist and left wing activists to adopt what they called "diversity of tactics" using "black bloc" formations that engage in property destruction and scuffles with police at larger mainstream protests. The most powerful of many pacifist replies to Churchill was from American activist George Lakey, a founder of Movement for a New Society, in a detailed response to Pacifism as Pathology. Lakey quotes Martin Luther King in entitling his year 2001 article Nonviolent Action as the Sword that Heals. However, he takes on Churchill's assumptions and reading of history from a pragmatic viewpoint, arguing the superiority of nonviolent action by describing "some movements that learned, from their own pragmatic experience, that they could wage struggle more successfully through nonviolent direct action than through violence." Quotations See also Footnotes Further reading *Bennett, Scott H. Radical Pacifism: The War Resisters League and Gandhian Nonviolence in America, 1915-1963 (New York: Syracuse Univ. Press, 2003). *Bennett, Scott H., ed. Army GI, Pacifist CO: The World War II Letters of Fank and Albert Dietrich (New York: Fordham Univ. Press, 2005). *True, Michael, "Justice Seekers, Peace Makers: 32 Portraits in Courage", 1985. ISBN 0-89622-212-8 *Adamek, R. J., & Lewis, J. M. (1975). Social control violence and radicalization: Behavioral data: Social Problems Vol 22(5) Jun 1975, 663-674. *Andrews, M. (1994). Apple pie and the politics of protest: Political Psychology Vol 15(4) Dec 1994, 785-790. *Arnett, R. C. (1978). A dialogical interpretation of interpersonal conflict viewed from the nonviolent peacemaking tradition: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Baj-Lindsey, C. E. (1998). The tolerance of ambiguity: An investigation across attitudinal, behavioral/motivational, and perceptual dimensions in pacifist and fundamentalist samples. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. *Barry, G. T. (1951). Further Discussion on Pacifists vs. Psychologists: American Psychologist Vol 6(8) Aug 1951, 457-458. *Borden, R. J., & Taylor, S. P. (1973). The social instigation and control of physical aggression: Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 3(4) Oct 1973, 354-361. *Braker, R. (1995). Bertha von Suttner's Spiritual Daughters: The Feminist Pacifism of Anita Augspurg, Lida Gustava Heymann, and Helene Stocker at the International Congress of Women at The Hague, 1915: Women's Studies International Forum Vol 18(2) Mar-Apr 1995, 103-111. *Churchill, W. (1986). Pacifism as pathology: Notes on an American pseudo-praxis: I: Issues in Radical Therapy Vol 12(1) 1986, 36-39, 55-69. *Creegan, R. F. (1951). Further Discussion on Pacifists vs. Psychologists: American Psychologist Vol 6(8) Aug 1951, 456-457. *Droba, D. D. (1931). Effect of various factors on militarism-pacifism: The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology Vol 26(2) Jul 1931, 141-153. *Droba, D. D. (1931). A scale of militarism-pacifism: Journal of Educational Psychology Vol 22(2) Feb 1931, 96-111. *Fassler, J., & Janis, M. G. (1983). Books, children, and peace: Young Children Vol 38(6) Sep 1983, 21-30. *Friedman, G. (2005). Commercial Pacifism and Protracted Conflict: Models from the Palestinian-Israeli Case: Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol 49(3) Jun 2005, 360-382. *Funes, M. J. (1998). Social responses to political violence in the Basque country: Peace movements and their audience: Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol 42(4) Aug 1998, 493-510. *Gladstone, A. I., & Kelman, H. C. (1951). Pacifists vs. Psychologists: American Psychologist Vol 6(4) Apr 1951, 127-128. *Goertzel, T. (1994). "Apple pie and the politics of protest": Response: Political Psychology Vol 15(4) Dec 1994, 791-793. *Goertzel, T. G. (1993). Some observations on psychological processes among organized American opponents to the Gulf War: Political Psychology Vol 14(1) Mar 1993, 139-146. *Gruder, C. L., & Duslak, R. J. (1973). Elicitation of cooperation by retaliatory and nonretaliatory strategies in a mixed-motive game: Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol 17(1) Mar 1973, 162-174. *Hartmann, G. W. (1941). Pacifism and its opponents in the light of value theory: The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology Vol 36(2) Apr 1941, 151-174. *Heaven, P. C., Rejab, D., & Bester, C. L. (1984). Psychometric properties of Elliott's measure of pacifism: Cross-cultural comparison: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Vol 15(2) Jun 1984, 223-232. *Hopkins, L. (1999). Fighting to be seen and heard: A tribute to four Western Australian peace activists: Women's Studies International Forum Vol 22(1) Jan-Feb 1999, 79-87. *Kemp, H. V. (1989). Domestic Pacifism in the Militant Church: PsycCRITIQUES Vol 34 (11), Nov, 1989. *Kimble, C. E., Fitz, D., & Onorad, J. R. (1977). Effectiveness of counteraggression strategies in reducing interactive aggression by males: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 35(4) Apr 1977, 272-278. *King, C. D. (1951). Further Discussion on Pacifists vs. Psychologists: American Psychologist Vol 6(8) Aug 1951, 458. *Kowalewski, D. (1994). Teaching war: Does it pacify students? : Journal of Instructional Psychology Vol 21(3) Sep 1994, 227-233. *Mayton, D. M., II, Peters, D. J., & Owens, R. W. (1999). Values, militarism, and nonviolent predispositions: Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology Vol 5(1) 1999, 69-77. *Mergendoller, J. R. (1989). Good and ill will: War resistance as a context for the study of moral action. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. *Moerk, E. L. (1995). Acquisition and transmission of pacifist mentalities in Sweden.291-307: Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology Vol 1(3) 1995, 291-307. *Moerk, E. L. (1997). Socialism and pacifism: Historical relations, value homologies, and implications of recent political developments, or the return of history: Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology Vol 3(1) 1997, 59-79. *Moskos, C. C. (1990). State and conscience: Stages of conscientious objection to military service. New York, NY, England: Greenwood Press. *Myers, D. G., & Bach, P. J. (1974). Discussion effects on militarism-pacifism: A test of the group polarization hypothesis: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 30(6) Dec 1974, 741-747. *Pilisuk, M. (1975). A Society of Killers and Martyrs: PsycCRITIQUES Vol 20 (8), Aug, 1975. *Pisano, R. L. (1973). An examination of pacifism and pain feedback in reducing human aggression: Dissertation Abstracts International Vol. *Plon, M. (2004). Eternal peace? : Agora: Estudos em Teoria Psicanalitica Vol 7(1) Jan-Jun 2004, 9-21. *Rucker, R. (1981). The peacemakers: A profile of seven pacifist tax refusers: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Schoenfeld, C. G. (1975). Pacifism and the law: A psychoanalytically oriented inquiry: Journal of Psychiatry & Law Vol 3(3) Fal 1975, 345-366. *Silen, P. E. (1991). Value conflict and complexity of thought: American Jewish attitudes towards Israeli militancy in the occupied territories: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Verschelden, C. (1993). Social work values and pacifism: Opposition to war as a professional responsibility: Social Work Vol 38(6) Nov 1993, 765-769. *Watson, G. (1951). Pacifists vs. Psychologists: Comment: American Psychologist Vol 6(4) Apr 1951, 128. *Wink, W. (2007). Beyond just war and pacifism: Jesus' nonviolent way. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. *Withall, J. (1951). Further Discussion on Pacifists vs. Psychologists: American Psychologist Vol 6(8) Aug 1951, 458. External links *Text of Dom Helder Camara's Spiral of Violence *Manifesto Against Conscription and the Military System *A Look at the Cultural Roots of German Pacifism *Writings on Christian Nonresistance and Pacifism from Anabaptist-Mennonite Sources *What the world wants and how to pay for it using military expenses *A collection of online books on pacifism *Journal of Religion, Conflict, and Peace * Category:Philosophies Category:Political theories Category:Virtues